FAR 33.2—Subpart 33.2

Definitions.

FAR 33.201 provides the core definitions used in the disputes and claims subpart, and those definitions control how contracting officers, contractors, and reviewers apply the rest of the rules in FAR Part 33. It covers five key topics: accrual of a claim, alternative dispute resolution (ADR), defective certification, issue in controversy, and misrepresentation of fact. These definitions matter because they determine when a claim starts the clock, what kinds of informal or formal dispute-resolution methods may be used, when a claim certification is legally sufficient, what qualifies as a dispute that may become a claim, and when false statements can affect the handling of a matter. In practice, these terms shape deadlines, jurisdictional questions, settlement strategy, and the validity of contractor claims. A correct understanding of them helps avoid missed claim deadlines, defective certifications, and avoidable disputes over whether a matter is ripe for resolution or has been tainted by misrepresentation.

Disputes.

FAR 33.202 is a short but important cross-reference provision that points contractors and contracting officers to the Contract Disputes Act, 41 U.S.C. chapter 71, which governs how claims are asserted and resolved under federal contracts. It identifies the core subjects covered by the statute: the procedures and requirements for filing and resolving claims, the payment of interest on contractor claims, the certification requirement for certain contractor claims, and the civil penalty that can apply when a contractor claim is fraudulent or based on a misrepresentation of fact. In practice, this section reminds the acquisition workforce that disputes are not handled informally once a claim is made; they must follow the statutory process and related FAR requirements. It also signals that claim preparation matters because interest, certification, and potential penalties can significantly affect both the timing and the risk of a claim. For contractors, the section highlights that a poorly prepared or false claim can create financial exposure beyond simply losing the dispute. For contracting officers, it underscores the need to process claims under the CDA framework rather than ad hoc negotiation alone.

Applicability.

FAR 33.203 explains when the FAR disputes framework applies and when it does not. It covers applicability to express and implied contracts, the exceptions for contracts with foreign governments and certain international organizations, and the scope of disputes covered by the Disputes statute—specifically disputes “arising under” or “relating to” a contract. It also addresses the continuing authority of agency Boards of Contract Appeals (BCAs) to decide contractor appeals, and the role of the FAR 52.233-1, Disputes clause in reflecting statutory rights and limitations. In practice, this section tells contracting parties whether the standard disputes process applies, what kinds of disagreements can be brought under it, and how the clause and the boards fit within the statutory scheme. It matters because it defines the jurisdictional and procedural framework for resolving contract disputes, which affects claim handling, appeal rights, and the limits of agency and contractor authority.

Policy.

FAR 33.204 states the Government’s basic policy for handling contract disputes and other contractual issues in controversy: resolve them first by mutual agreement at the contracting officer’s level, and do so before a claim is formally submitted whenever possible. The section also encourages agencies to use alternative dispute resolution (ADR) procedures to the maximum extent practicable, while recognizing that some disputes may not be suitable for ADR under the factors in 5 U.S.C. 572(b). It further explains that agencies have authority to use ADR under legal authority separate from the Administrative Dispute Resolution Act (ADRA), except when arbitration is conducted under the ADRA itself, and that agencies may also choose to proceed under the ADRA’s authority and requirements. In practice, this section is about early, cooperative dispute resolution, preserving working relationships, reducing litigation and claims costs, and giving agencies flexibility to choose the dispute-resolution framework that best fits the situation. For contractors, it signals that informal negotiation and ADR are expected steps before escalation; for contracting officers, it establishes a duty to actively seek resolution at their level whenever feasible.

Relationship of the Disputes statute to Pub. L.85-804.

FAR 33.205 explains how the Contract Disputes Act (CDA) and the standard Disputes clause interact with Public Law 85-804, which authorizes extraordinary contractual relief in limited circumstances. It covers three main topics: (1) requests for relief under Pub. L. 85-804 are not CDA claims and must be handled under FAR subpart 50.1; (2) requests for rescission or reformation based on mutual mistake are now treated as CDA claims when the contractor asserts a legal entitlement to that remedy; and (3) a claim denied or only partly granted under the CDA may still be considered for extraordinary relief under Pub. L. 85-804 if the agency lacks other adequate legal authority. The section also addresses the contracting officer’s need to seek legal advice when authority is uncertain and requires written decisions, prepared with counsel, on claims involving alleged entitlement to rescission or reformation. In practice, this section prevents contractors from bypassing the normal disputes process, preserves the limited and exceptional nature of Pub. L. 85-804 relief, and ensures that legally cognizable contract remedies are first considered under the CDA before extraordinary relief is pursued.

Initiation of a claim.

FAR 33.206 sets the basic filing deadlines for Contract Disputes Act claims and explains when those deadlines begin and how they apply to both contractor claims and Government claims. It covers the 6-year statute of limitations, the ability of the parties to agree to a shorter period, the special rule excluding contracts awarded before October 1, 1995, the requirement that contractor claims be submitted in writing to the contracting officer for a decision, the contracting officer’s duty to document the date a claim is received, and the separate rule for Government claims, including the exception for Government claims based on a contractor claim involving fraud. In practice, this section determines whether a claim is timely and therefore whether it can be pursued at all. It is a threshold rule: if a claim is late, the merits may never be reached. For contractors, it means tracking accrual dates carefully and submitting claims before the deadline. For contracting officers, it means preserving evidence of receipt, recognizing when a submission is a claim, and issuing decisions on Government claims within the required period.

Contractor certification.

FAR 33.207 sets the contractor certification requirement for claims under the Contract Disputes Act and explains when certification is required, what the certification must say, who may sign it, and what happens if the certification is defective. It applies to contractor claims exceeding $100,000 and makes clear that the certification requirement does not apply to mere issues in controversy unless they have been submitted as part of a claim. The rule also specifies the exact certification language, including good faith, accuracy and completeness of supporting data, the correctness of the amount requested, and the signer’s authority to certify on the contractor’s behalf. In addition, it explains how to count the dollar threshold by using the aggregate amount of both increased and decreased costs, and it confirms that a defective certification does not eliminate jurisdiction in court or before an agency board of contract appeals. Practically, this section matters because an uncertified or improperly certified claim can delay resolution, require correction, and create avoidable disputes over whether the claim is validly presented.

Interest on claims.

FAR 33.208 explains when the Government must pay interest on a contractor’s claim, how that interest is calculated, and how defective certifications affect the start date for interest. It ties interest to the date the contracting officer receives the claim, or to the date payment otherwise would have been due if that is later, and it continues until payment is made. The section also establishes that the interest is simple interest, not compound interest, and that the applicable rate comes from the Treasury Secretary under the Disputes statute, with the rate potentially changing every 6 months during the life of the claim. In addition, it points readers to the Government’s corresponding right to collect interest on its own claims under the contract clause at 52.232-17. Finally, it addresses a special rule for claims with defective certifications, including the October 29, 1992 cutoff and the exception for a later proper certification after an earlier defective one. In practice, this section matters because it affects claim valuation, settlement timing, and the financial consequences of delays or certification errors.

Suspected fraudulent claims.

FAR 33.209 addresses what a contracting officer must do when a contractor cannot support part of a claim and there is evidence that the missing support is due to a misrepresentation of fact or fraud by the contractor. The section is a referral rule, not a merits decision on the claim itself: it tells the contracting officer to stop treating the issue as an ordinary contract administration matter and instead send it to the agency official responsible for investigating fraud. In practice, this provision sits at the intersection of claims processing, documentation review, and fraud detection, and it helps ensure that potentially fraudulent conduct is handled by the proper investigative channel rather than resolved informally or solely through contract remedies. It covers the contractor’s inability to substantiate a claim, the presence of evidence suggesting misrepresentation or fraud, the contracting officer’s mandatory referral duty, and the role of the agency fraud-investigation function. For contractors, it is a warning that unsupported claim elements can trigger serious consequences beyond denial of the claim, including fraud investigation. For contracting officers, it is a safeguard requiring escalation when the facts indicate possible fraud rather than mere poor recordkeeping or a disputed entitlement issue.

Contracting officer’s authority.

FAR 33.210 explains the contracting officer’s authority to decide or resolve contract claims under the Disputes statute and the limits on that authority. It covers the basic rule that contracting officers may act on claims arising under or relating to a contract, but only within the specific limits of their warrants and subject to agency policy. It also addresses the use of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) under FAR 33.214 as a permitted way to resolve claims. Just as important, it identifies two major carve-outs where the contracting officer has no authority: claims or disputes involving penalties or forfeitures that another federal agency is specifically authorized by statute or regulation to administer, settle, or determine, and any claim involving fraud. In practice, this section tells contracting officers when they can issue a decision or negotiate a resolution, and when they must stop and refer the matter elsewhere. For contractors, it signals that not every dispute can be handled through the normal contracting officer claims process, especially where fraud or another agency’s statutory enforcement authority is involved.

Contracting officer’s decision.

FAR 33.211 explains what a contracting officer must do when a contractor claim or a Government claim cannot be resolved by mutual agreement and a formal decision is needed. It covers the contracting officer’s fact-finding duties, use of legal and technical advisors, coordination with contract administration personnel, and the required contents of a written final decision. It also addresses how the decision must be delivered, the statutory time limits for issuing decisions on claims of $100,000 or less and claims over $100,000, how defective certifications affect the obligation to decide, and what happens when the contracting officer delays or fails to issue a decision. Finally, it requires payment of amounts found due under the decision, while preserving both parties’ rights to appeal or litigate. In practice, this section is the core procedural rule for turning an unresolved claim into a legally effective final decision that starts appeal rights and deadlines under the Contract Disputes Act.

Contracting officer’s duties upon appeal.

FAR 33.212 addresses what happens after a contractor appeals a contracting officer’s final decision to an agency board of contract appeals (BCA). It requires the contracting officer to provide the BCA with data, documentation, information, and other support needed for the appeal, but only to the extent allowed by agency procedures governing contacts with BCA personnel. In practice, this section is about preserving the government’s ability to defend the decision on appeal by ensuring the board has the factual record and administrative support it needs. It also recognizes that agencies may have internal rules limiting direct communications or setting channels for contact with board personnel, so the contracting officer must operate within those procedures. The section is short, but it is important because it ties the contracting officer’s post-decision duties to the litigation/appeal process and helps ensure the appeal record is complete, accurate, and timely supported.

Obligation to continue performance.

FAR 33.213 explains when a contractor must keep performing while a dispute is being resolved, and how that obligation differs depending on whether the claim arises under the contract or merely relates to the contract. It ties the rule to the Disputes statute at 41 U.S.C. 7103(g) and to the disputes clause at 52.233-1, including Alternate I, which is used to address disputes relating to the contract. The section also defines the key distinction between a claim "arising under" a contract and a claim "relating to" a contract, because that distinction affects whether the Government can require continued performance and whether financing of continued performance should be considered. In practice, this section is about keeping work moving during disputes, protecting the Government’s operational needs, and ensuring that contractors are not forced to stop performance simply because a claim is unresolved. It also signals that, for certain disputes, the contracting officer should consider financing options if the Government’s interest can be adequately secured.

Alternative dispute resolution (ADR).

FAR 33.214 explains when and how alternative dispute resolution (ADR) may be used to resolve federal contract disputes more quickly and at lower cost than formal litigation. It covers the core purpose of ADR, the essential elements required for a valid ADR process, and the requirement that both sides voluntarily agree to participate and to the procedures that will be used. It also addresses what happens when one side rejects ADR, including the contracting officer’s duty to give a written explanation and the contractor’s duty to explain a rejection in writing. The section clarifies that ADR can be used at any time the contracting officer has authority to resolve the issue, including after a claim is submitted, and that post-final-decision ADR does not stop appeal deadlines or reopen the final decision. It further covers the use of neutrals, confidentiality protections, limits on requiring arbitration in solicitations, the need for written arbitration agreements with a maximum award and other limits, and the special rule that binding arbitration is allowed only under agency guidelines. In practice, this section gives agencies and contractors a flexible dispute-resolution tool, but only when authority, consent, confidentiality, and procedural safeguards are all in place.

Contract clauses.

FAR 33.215 tells contracting officers which dispute-related clauses must be included in solicitations and contracts. It covers two specific requirements: the mandatory insertion of the Disputes clause at FAR 52.233-1, including use of Alternate I when agency procedures determine that continued performance is necessary while a claim is being resolved, and the mandatory insertion of FAR 52.233-4, applicable to all solicitations and contracts. In practice, this section ensures that the contract contains the government’s standard framework for handling claims and disputes, including how disputes are processed and what happens if performance must continue during resolution. It matters because omission or incorrect use of these clauses can create contract administration problems, weaken the government’s ability to manage disputes, and lead to inconsistent treatment across acquisitions. For contractors, it signals that dispute procedures and any continued-performance obligations are part of the bargain from the start.